I may make “Reading List” a recurring feature. Instead of keeping a private list of papers on my stack, I’ll post it. The ones I actually read and find particularly interesting will be featured in subsequent posts.
The following new paper on cost shifting has been published in Health Affairs. I will review it next week.
A common assumption is that hospitals have little control over their costs and must charge high rates to private health insurers when Medicare rates are lower than hospital costs. We present evidence that contradicts that common assumption. Hospitals with strong market power and higher private-payer and other revenues appear to have less pressure to constrain their costs. Thus, these hospitals have higher costs per unit of service, which can lead to losses on Medicare patients. Hospitals under more financial pressure—with less market share and less ability to charge higher private rates—often constrain costs and can generate profits on Medicare patients.
The following two new NBER papers look interesting to me.
This essay considers the appropriate conceptual framework for assessing the taxation of private transfers to individuals. Although it is conventional to emphasize the role of estate and gift taxation or inheritance taxation in redistributing income from the rich to the poor, the revenue effects of transfer taxation, and its distortionary effect on labor supply and savings, it is suggested in line with some recent work that the dominant focus should be on positive and negative externalities attributable to giving. The fundamental reason is that transfer tax reform can be combined with adjustments to other aspects of the fiscal system, notably the income tax, so as to keep constant most effects other than externalities.
Substantial uncertainty exists regarding the causal effect of health insurance on the utilization of care. Most studies cannot determine whether the large differences in healthcare utilization between the insured and the uninsured are due to insurance status or to other unobserved differences between the two groups. In this paper, we exploit a sharp change in insurance coverage rates that results from young adults “aging out” of their parents’ insurance plans to estimate the effect of insurance coverage on the utilization of emergency department (ED) and inpatient services. Using the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and a census of emergency department records and hospital discharge records from seven states, we find that aging out results in an abrupt 5 to 8 percentage point reduction in the probability of having health insurance. We find that not having insurance leads to a 40 percent reduction in ED visits and a 61 percent reduction in inpatient hospital admissions. The drop in ED visits and inpatient admissions is due entirely to reductions in the care provided by privately owned hospitals, with particularly large reductions at for profit hospitals. The results imply that expanding health insurance coverage would result in a substantial increase in care provided to currently uninsured individuals.
The following ScienceNews article by Tom Siegfried was the subject of an Alex Tabarrok post.
For better or for worse, science has long been married to mathematics. Generally it has been for the better. Especially since the days of Galileo and Newton, math has nurtured science. Rigorous mathematical methods have secured science’s fidelity to fact and conferred a timeless reliability to its findings.
During the past century, though, a mutant form of math has deflected science’s heart from the modes of calculation that had long served so faithfully. Science was seduced by statistics, the math rooted in the same principles that guarantee profits for Las Vegas casinos. Supposedly, the proper use of statistics makes relying on scientific results a safe bet. But in practice, widespread misuse of statistical methods makes science more like a crapshoot.